HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000075 Correspondence 2021-03-12Christopher Perez
From: Frank Pohl
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 7:28 AM
To: Scott Collins; John Anderson
Cc: Tori Kanellopoulos; Bart Svoboda; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream
buffer Guidance ]
Scott,
Since groundwater assessments are required through the WPO, I've consulted with Bart to render this determination.
Considering there is no increase in water demand, the well is existing, and the use has not changed, this is not
considered a new non-residential use and a groundwater assessment is not required.
This determination does not preclude the County from recommending to the governing body that an assessment is
provided for a similar future special use permit if concerns warrant such a request.
Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM
County Engineer
Albemarle County
fpohl@albemarle.org
434-296-5832 x7914
401 McIntire Road, North Wing, Charlottesville, VA 22902
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:28 PM
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>; Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda
<bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream buffer Guidance ]
CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open
attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.
Bart -
Just following up on this email. Should I submit a formal request to Amelia on this question or can I get a response to
my question below.
Thx.
Scott
From: Scott Collins
Sent: Monday, March 1, 20218:58 AM
To: John Anderson <0anderson2@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>; Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>; Bart 5voboda
<bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream buffer Guidance ]
Bart -
Can I get a zoning ruling on the requirements of a Tier III report for the Ivy Exxon project? Per chapter 17 of the
Albemarle County zoning ordinance, a Tier III and Tier IV groundwater analysis is required for a NEW Nonresidential
Ise. As you are aware, this is not a new nonresidential use. This is an existing business with an existing well that is not
increasing its overall water consumption with more customers or employees. Based on the County ordinance, I do not
see where an existing project with an existing well is required to provide a Tier III groundwater analysis, especially since
the use and demand is not increasing.
Thx.
Scott
From: John Anderson <landerson2@albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 20218:10 AM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>; Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda
<bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP20200007S Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream buffer Guidance ]
CORRECTION, item I below:
Engineering SP review comment that LOMR is required prior to FSP /WPO plan fev-iew approval does not set aside other
requirements.
From: John Anderson <landerson2@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:28 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>; Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda
<bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain -Tier III GWA- stream buffer Guidance ]
Scott,
Thanks for your note, which reminds relatively simple proposals may involve nuanced review. At this point, perhaps it is best
if Frank responds, but a few thoughts:
1. Engineering SP review comment that LOMR is required prior to FSP /WPO plan review does not set aside other
requirements. Please see text at 18-30.3.10, email below. Also, prospective floodplain boundaries have virtually
no jurisdictional meaning; CLOMRs have meaning, but require coordination with /approval from FEMA. Albemarle
has discussed, internally.
2. Tier III Groundwater Analysis:
a. Is mentioned in SP2020-00006 Approval.
b. Earlier today, we received email stating a Tier III GWA was submitted with SP2020-00006.
c. ( Why bother submitting a Tier III GWA with SP if it was not required? Why send the email?)
d. Now, further shift: A Tier III GWA is not required based on table appearance of the word'new.'
e. Engineering will discuss with Planning /Zoning, but is mindful of several considerations:
i. New may have regulatory meaning that departs from a day-to-day understanding of the word 'new.'
ii. New use' is not defined in chapter 17, where we find groundwater assessment ordinance requirements.
iii. 17-1000 Applicability, first sentence, begins: 'This article applies to the establishment of land uses
that will rely on privately owned wells serving as the primary source of potable water...' Applicability
is a generally reliable guide when considering whether an article applies to a particular use or not. In
this instance, while deferring to Zoning /Planning, it appears that a proposed expansion of Scott's Ivy
Exxon establishes a (land) use. Again, confusing that discussion of GWA appears in SP staff report,
SP approval, etc., if not required. I trust internal division guidance, yet share Engineering perspective
and opinion that Tier III GWA requirements apply to this ISP.
iv. If we turn to 18-3.1 for definitional guidance, we find 'new construction' (for floodplain management
purposes) defined as structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after December
16, 1980 (and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures).
V. Although fair to examine the word 'nevW in context of GWA requirements (to ask what new means),
Ch. 18 definition of 'new construction' highlights that new activity is not necessarily recent, a
reminder that common sense may not be a reliable guide to definitional meaning, or applicability.
3. Stream buffer: Not sure what the objection is. Email below does not say stream buffer linework or boundary impedes
ISP approval, only that draft GWA and floodplain boundary issues impede ISP approval. Comment points out that 100'
stream buffer width may aid review and may favor proposed development if it does not extend more than 100' onto the
site. SP review comments do not necessarily foreclose additional comments valid or appropriate to subsequent
application reviews (site plan, WPO). Stream buffer requirements are fully considered with WPO
applications. Consideration of stream buffer requirements does not only occur with a special use permit. More
often, special (use) permits routinely anticipate WPO plans, anticipate that WPO plan review will evaluate design
against chapter 17 requirements. I am glad to discuss this further with Frank.
We'll be in touch.
Thanks, Scott
best, J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 6:57 PM
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream buffer Guidance ]
John -
Looks like we still need a zoom call.
1. Floodplain - Attached is the engineering review comment letter from the SP on 4-3-20. The engineering
comment letter specifically states that the LOMR is needed prior to final site plan approval and WPO
approval. If we knew it was a requirement for preliminary plat approval, we would have completed it ahead of
time. But, based on this comment letter, it was understood that the LOMR would be completed prior to the
approval of the final site plan.
2. Tier III Analysis —Chapter 17-1000 does speak to the need for Tier III groundwater analysis. However, the Tier III
and Tier IV groundwater analysis is required for a NEW Nonresidential use. As you are aware, this is not a new
nonresidential use. This is an existing business with an existing well that is not increasing its overall water
consumption with more customers or employees. Providing a Tier III groundwater analysis is not a requirement
for an existing non-residential use, based on what is see in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County ordinance.
3. Steam Buffer- See attached comment letter and Application plan from the SP. The stream buffer area was
determined with the added available greenspace area as shown in orange on the application plan. We will make
sure the final plans and WPO plans show this WPO buffer per the SP application.
Chris, I am hoping that this additional information will satisfy the remaining comments for the initial site plan approval.
understand that Friday, January 22" is the 60 day deadline, however, we did receive the comments 8 days late from
staff. If we can not meet on Friday to discuss these final items but have to talk early next week, I assume that we will
have some flexibility before having to request an extension.
Thx.
Scott
From: John Anderson <]anderson2@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 5:45 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan [ Floodplain - Tier III GWA - stream buffer Guidance ]
Scott,
Planning, Engineering, Zoning took time this afternoon to review ordinance, ISP (d. 11/16/20; proposed improvements), critical
resource layer/s (GIS /floodplain-stream buffer), and briefly discussed SP2020-00006 (re. stream buffer), relative to SDP2020-
00075.
Please accept the following guidance:
Floodplain
o Plans ( ISP, FSP, ROAD, WPO, plats, etc.) must reference flood boundaries defined by effective FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map/s.
o Prospective flood boundaries (horizontal extent of floodplain/base flood elevation) are helpful; we understand
intent to obtain FEMA LOMC.
o Prospective flood boundaries, however, are not recognized in a jurisdictional sense by the county flood hazard
overlay district, or FHOD requirements.
o Please ensure linework and labels are consistent with elevations /horizontal limits of floodplain (for the project
site); ref. FEMA FIRM Panel 51003CO265D [ Eff. 2/3/051.
o Please see 18-30.3.10 - Administration; Letters of Map Change; link /text, see ADDiTiONAL, below.
Stream buffer (Little Ivy Creek)
o The stream buffer is not identical with floodplain at this location, but is narrower. Image, below.
o The stream buffer need not extend as far as the floodplain boundary onto TMPi1058A2-00-00-02100.
o Extending buffer 100' into the property (preparing /labeling linework accordingly) may aid review /relieve
ordinance requirements, in some respects.
o Stream buffer (200' wide centered on Little Ivy Creek, 100' either side of stream CL) should be shown as
accurately as possible; please see ADDiTiONAL, below.
o Proposed development must be consistent with (and buffer managed in accordance with) ordinance
requirements, Ch. 17, Article VI.
Tier III GWA
o Not submitted with SP2020-00006.
o Rather, a 41-p. packet of information is included with SP2020-00006 Staff Report.
o Collins Engineering requests Engineering rely on this information /extract Tier III GWA data from this
information:
• This is not a Tier III GWA report, but begins with a letter from ECS Mid -Atlantic, to Todd A.
Pitsenberger, Petroleum Program Manager, VDEQNalley Regional Office.
• This information appears designed to address state -based petroleum -contamination monitoring well
/sampling reporting requirements.
• The purpose of a GWA is to evaluate groundwater supply, via narrative, and watershed geology -
ground cover -evaporative -recharge quantitative analysis.
• Albemarle cannot sift a 41-p. record of information submitted not to Albemarle (initially), but to DEQ
for purposes of petroleum -contaminant monitoring.
• Note: Tier III data may be dispersed throughout the 41-p. packet, but a draft Tier III GWA prepared
by a qualified geologist that meets groundwater assessment requirements at ACDSM is all that is
required, per 17-1003.
• Albemarle Engineering Div. requests a conventional Tier III GWA Report for the project /proposed
use, etc.
• ( Please submit to Engineering at earliest convenience. )
o Information beginning with ECS Mid -Atlantic letter to DEQ-Valley Regional Office may overlap Tier III
GWA requirements, but fails as a Tier III GWA report.
o Please extract or acquire /provide information, as needed (if not included with groundwater contaminant
monitoring report initially sent to DEQ-Valley Regional Office), for Engineering review.
o Engineering will evaluate the Tier III GWA, once submitted, against Code 17-1003 requirements as soon as
possible, likely mid -week, next week.
0 17-1003 references requirements at Albemarle County Design Standards Manual (ACDSM); please see
ADDIUONAL below.
o Please prepare a conventional report, titled Tier III GWA, Scott's Ivy Exxon, SDP2020-00075.
Effect on ISP approval: Until /unless a LOW (Amendment or Revision to FEMA FIRM) is approved by FEMA that
shows existing structure to be outside mapped floodplain, then proposed expansion shown with the initial site plan may
not be approved.
o That is, the initial site plan may not be approved, at this point.
o The ISP may not be approved conditional upon FEMA-approval of prospective (for the moment, unapproved)
floodplain limits.
o FEMA (Approved) LOW must show that the existing structure (Scott's Ivy Exxon) is located outside mapped
floodplain, prior to approval of this initial site plan (SDP2020-00075).
o Note:
• Please submit FDP Application as soon as possible,
• Please submit all information required of a FEMA Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) Application/s; i.e., a complete Application.
• Collins Engineering (CE) is likely familiar with the FEMA LOMC review /approval
process. Albemarle County is glad to assist CE (County Engineer is local floodplain administrator).
Please feel free to call if any questions, but this is ordinance -based, Zoning -Planning -Engineering guidance. Please be assured
the Albemarle County Engineer supports and is aware of this transmittal.
Thanks for your patience.
Take care, best,
John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer 11
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3069
GIS— STREAM BUFFER ( Little Ivy Creek)
`k
a
GIS—FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY( Also, VFRIS) (Also, attached, FEMA FIRM Panel 51003CO265D, Eff. 2/3/2005)
VFRIS: https://consappsrpt.dcr.virginia.gov/vafloodrisk/vfris2.htmi
L. %k
f
CODE. 18-30.3.10
Link:
httos://library.municode.com/ya/albemarle county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=CH18ZO ARTIIIDIRE S30OVDI 530.3FLHAO
VDIH. 530.3.10ADLEMACH
C. Effect of Letter of Map Change on permitting and uses. A proposed or pending request for a Letter of Map Chan
1. Letter of Map Amendment or Conditional Letter of Map Amendment. If the owner has or will be requesting a
application and any authorized use may begin, provided that the owner furnished to the administrator the s
Amendment is issued.
2. Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Letter of Map Revision, optional. If the owner has or will be requesting
application and any authorized use may begin, provided that if the Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Let
floodway to the floodway fringe, any approval may be conditioned on, and no use shall be begin, until the Fe
3. Letter of Map Revision (-LOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), required. If the owner has o
not act on any pending application and no use shall begin until the Federal Emergency Management Agency
ACDSM.P.5
Link: https://www.albemarle.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=270
D. Groundwater assessments: Article IV of the Water Protection Ordinance requires
groundwater assessments. See section 17-400 for a table stating when assessments arc
required, and the Subdivision Ordinance section 14-308.1. Groundwater assessments are
reviewed by the Program Authority or designee.
1. Tier 3 and 4 assessment requirements: (there are no requirements for Tier 1 and 2)
a. A report certified by a licensed geologist containing
l . a graphics section or plans containing
a. topography with land and water features
b. proposed development
c. geological contacts and features
d. surrounding property 1000ft beyond property lines with wells and septic
system locations
e. all potential and known contamination sources
f. graphic depiction of groundwater recharge areas and flow
g, any other relevant information
2. A narrative containing
a. review of existing hydro -geologic information
b. field survey summary
c. review and analysis of graphic and plan information
d. groundwater management plan addressing practices during and after
construction, in addition to a contingency plan if wells dry up or become
contaminated.
e. assessment of well drilling and testing
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:44 PM
To: John Anderson <0anderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
Thanks. Most anytime Friday works for me. Go ahead and set up a time that works for you and Frank, and I will make it
work on my end.
Thx.
Scott
From: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:42 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
Scott, are you available Friday?
We have FEMA Floodplain training, today - Thur, 4pm; Frank and I are attending on-line training. Please let us know —Frank
will respond what works for him.
Agreed, I think we'll be able to make progress via conference.
thanks, best, J. Anderson
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:17 PM
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
John -
I can not do this back and forth over email. Let's set up a call with Frank (tomorrow works for me) and discuss on a
zoom call. The 513 elevation is at our site, and it is barely plotted on the site.
And, if the LOMR is denied, then we have to redesign our site for final approval. Ok.
Scott
From: John Anderson <landerson2@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:13 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
Scott,
As follow-up, in FEMA floodplain training (occurring now), presenter just stated that LOMRs can be denied. From VFRIS,
project location (No LOMR at project site, but upstream):
Thanks, Scott
VFRIS: https://consappsrpt.dcr.virginia.gov/vafloodrisk/vfris2.htmi
John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer 11
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3069
10
From: John Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:50 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott(o)collins-en¢ineering.com>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.ore>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
11
Scott,
Thanks for your note —detail is helpful. I intend to retrieve the Tier III study. Was the draft Tier III approved, or simply
submitted during the special permit process? Similarly, during the SP process, did the county engineer (Floodplain
Administrator) specifically state that the LOMR would be reviewed and approved as part of the ESP process. An unusual
position, since FEMA approves LOMR (Letter of map change /Amendment /Revision). Albemarle has no authority to approve
any change to a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map —this is a review action reserved for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Engineering compares proposed development with effective maps. Also, has a FDP application be submitted?
I have never seen a prospective floodplain (that requires FEMA review /approval) presented on any plan with a label that
represents unapproved linework /or revised horizontal limits of floodplain, as if approved, as if it is the jurisdictional
boundary. Albemarle cannot approve an ISP that shows a prospective, unapproved floodplain limit as if it were an approved
boundary for purposes of design, review, or flood risk mitigation. We do not know this, and would be remiss to assume either
the timing or outcome of federal (FEMA) review. To my mind (perhaps mistakenly), intermediate steps concerning floodplain
appear to be skipped ( approved CLOMR, FDP Application). The ISP proposes improvements within mapped floodplain
disallowed by ordinance. We can get there, but are not there. We need to let processes occur in sequence, and recognize
prospective( new /revised /altered) floodplain limits as current floodplain limits only if approved by FEMA. Please let us know
about the draft Tier III GWA.
I am unable to research GWA this minute, since in training ( 1-4pm; FEMA floodplain, as it happens), but at 4, will be glad to
review Tier III GWA submitted as part of SP2020-00006 review. Is this helpful? We appreciate both the excellent detail and
design effort with both SP2020-00006, and SDP2020-00075. We appreciate your patience.
Thankyou
best, J. Anderson
John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer 11
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3069
From: Scott Collins <scott@collins-en2ineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:26 PM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: John Anderson <landerson2@albemarle.orla>
Subject: RE: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
Chris, John -
The Tier III study was submitted during the Special use permit process. Also, during the special use permit process, it
was determined that the LOMR would be reviewed and approved as part of the final site plan process. Not sure why
either of these would hold up the approval of the Preliminary Site plan.
Please advise.
Thx.
Scott
From: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Scott Collins <scott@collins-en2ineering.com>
Cc: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.orl >
Subject: SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
Scott,
SDP202000075 Scott's Ivy Exxon - Initial Site Plan
12
After receiving and reviewing Engineering's review comments I am ready to advise you on the project and how to move forward. I
request you defer this project by Friday, January 22, no later than loam or I will deny the initial site plan. During this deferral period I
request that you revise the initial site plan and submit the required documents to adequately address Engineering's review comments
#2, #3, and #4 (see below and attached). You may address additional review comments at this time if you like. Once the initial site
plan is revised and resubmitted I request you defer the project for an additional 2 weeks for the review of these documents before I
take an action on the plan. Without the deferral request to extend the review of the project I will be unable to conditionally approve the
plan because of inadequate time to review the revisions. If you have any questions give me a call or send me an email. Thanks
2. 17.1000: A draft Tier 3 Groundxater A%+ s,micnl (GWAI is requirNynn, lu appru%a] of m initial %ac
plan for • rr% nop•midemial on wmgnculwnl use uang ., 2.000 gpd, ad doll I'ier 4 GN'A A,. ,meet
if use is . 2,000 pd. Prmide appropr ste GWA Report for Fngmcenng more% and aR.)iA as uorninum
of ISP Approval.
3. provide Now, swing GWA requirements apply to this ISP; lwt pnrpo%tl dad) use (got-
Shect 1
4. 100-w Iloodn6in: KMisulnu ndmg intent to spply fur a I-0MR LOW with FEMA, to best of our
knou ledge, to date, the FEMA map chonge process m mwmpkte. The irmusl site plm slsould non show
Iloodplam lumts sneolhratenr with esiutng flood hated os'Mny dinner in county GI& Pkasc res ix initial
site plan to also% existing mapped FEMA floodplam. or provide esdence of revised, FEMA-approvasl
floodpiain limns idrntisd %ah limits Aoun on sheet 3. Burning innundenranding. uokaa notes or
narran,c ciscultar on the ISP sin ovcriwkcd. 100.)v flomdplaus on Chia short is presented as faslual. and is
nhcd upon tin proposed impmscrosnu that, per I800.1.I I and approved spocial permit moraine, may not
occupy areas within the 100-)s Iloodplain. ISP must be mvned to indicate can cm location of FFMA.
mapped 1loodplam_ Alicnisimcly: show edsung honmmal limns of mopped floodplsin, consistent unit
flood hatred overlay district on la)om plan shw. and to -label prope for I00-yr Iloodplism. as pending
F1_I1.1 rmrnusnl. ISP must chnfv what is the current cfl'orusc 1FF.MA-approwdi rapped Ikudplwn.
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
Albemarle County
cpervz@aIbcrnar1e.org
office 434.296.5832 x 3443
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
From: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.orl >
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 20215:24 PM
To: Scott Collins<scott@collins-enlrineering.com>
Cc: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP202000075 SCOTT'S IVY EXXON - INITIAL - DIGITAL. [ Engineering review
comments I
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = SDP202000075
Reviewer = John Anderson
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = O1/19/2021
This email was sent from County View Production.
Scott,
Thanks for your patience.
Attached also in CV.
Take care, best,
John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia
13
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3069
14